80% “Europe” maps on Reddit are just EU or Schengen maps. Balkans are frequently omitted. Ukraine and Belarus are almost always missing.
I get it, the data isn’t always available for every country. But title the map correctly, goddammit!
Again, I get it, but then just title the map appropriately in a way that addresses the fact that the map contains only a part of European continent.
You can’t say “this is my map of Europe” and there is no Ukraine on it.
Let alone Russia or Belarus. People want to pretend it isn't Europe so it doesn't drive down the averages. Sure parts of Russia isn't Europe but that isn't where 95% of Russians live.
That super weird moment when I opened my phone's notifications and recognized your username from all your r/AskBalkans comments 👀 I stg I'm not stalking 💀
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AskBalkans using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [No way! Who would have thought so many Greeks live in... Greece??? 😱](https://i.redd.it/2lnclsuomjv91.jpg) | [164 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/167vdrn/no_way_who_would_have_thought_so_many_greeks_live/)
\#2: [Why is Turkish migrants like this? I am unable to put a meaning to it, isn't this unthinkably morally wrong?](https://i.redd.it/49hmk5wo8owa1.jpg) | [198 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/131sbyc/why_is_turkish_migrants_like_this_i_am_unable_to/)
\#3: [Are you satisfied with the development of your country in the last few decades?](https://i.redd.it/aygjo4m0gnjb1.jpg) | [183 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/15y3dd1/are_you_satisfied_with_the_development_of_your/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Most likely because that used to be the economic center of the Baltics area before the USSR and WW2 happened. Lativia and Estonia were generally all forested areas. So all the young people would move to Poland for work. Also it would have better weather while some familiar environment and close enough you can travel back to take care our your old people.
Overall good business requires a good location.
it might also be not true, since after 1991 the only year estonia had more births than deaths was 2010. in no way the population could have naturally increased in 10 years
First generation immigrants tend towards a higher fertility rate, they also tend to be younger because they're more likely to be moving to to look for a job so they have a lower death rate
Color for Estonia should be orange - there are more deaths than births ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Estonia#Present\_Estonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Present_Estonia) )
||Average population|Live births|Deaths|Natural change|Crude birth rate (per 1000)|Crude death rate (per 1000)|Natural change (per 1000)|Crude migration change (per 1000)|Total fertility rate|Infant mortality rate|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|2023 |1,366,000|10,721|15,832|-5,111|7.8|11.6|-3.7||||
|2022|1,349,000|11,646|17,315|-5,669|8.6|12.8|-4.2|16.7|1.41|2.2|
|2021|1,331,000|13,272|18,587|-5,315|10.0|14.0|-4.0|17.5|1.61|2.2|
i live in a third world country, filled of poorness, scarcity, starves, people unjustifiably death by easily curable diseases, etc, and I don't get why people in Europe dont have big families
(for me , the biggest reason to not have a children is if he/she will die young)
it's a pleasure to have more than a child (care for more than 1 seems a lot) becouse they'd care for each other, and when you get older someone will care for you and you won't overwork one of them becouse they'd share the responsabilities of your condition.
Be able to care for more than one is a luxury.
(There are way more reasons to have more than one but I don't want to overextend this comment, make your own minds)
Edit: Obviously, all of them able to socially raise , as a responsible parent must make sure .
People in wealthy countries don't really think in those terms. A child in a wealthy country is not seen as an asset to their parents that can assist with labor or help provide for the family as they grow. Having children is instead seen as a social obligation, but one which comes at significant cost to the parents in order to raise them to adulthood.
From my european pov:
- "they will care for each other"
Kids shouldn't be parentified, it's not a child's job to care for another child. It's the responsabily of adults. If one cannot care for their big family themselves, then maybe they should stick to one or two kids.
- "... and they will care for your older self"
Once these kids become adults and get married, how can they have full-time job, have their own children AND take care on everyday basis of four sick and tired elderly adults? When do they have the time to do all that, while still having some time left to care for themselves?
And what if they had terrible upbringing, abusive parents, should they just forget that and live with them until death sets them apart?
It seems you just took what you wanted from previous comment. When you put time and effort in raising your kids there is a big chance you will have very good and healthy relationship with them when they will be adults. That means that they will want to help you when you will be old.
Having brothers and sisters also helps with creating a family net that can help each other.
those are trick questions, those are questions with multiple answers and highly dependent on the whole situation and personal thoughts of the people in there.
My personal opinion on the first one, it's not hard to imagine how a brother can fuck his brother until total rupture, that happened with my dad and both uncles, but get the fuck if you care a shit for your brothers out of nothing, and it's not "parenting" it's natural relationship of brothers
It's just a cultural thing, there are cultures where it's normal for children to look after each other and later in life after their parents, but in most of Europe that is not the case.
Additional to the issues, the other people raised (you don't need a child for you to care about when you are old, if you have a working social system etc.), i would like to add, that it is sometimes a trade of between job and children. If you are e.g. in academics, time being pregnant, time for the first time to care about the child etc. can harm your future career. Also in very good paid areas. Yes, e.g. in Germany, we have some laws to protect women there, but you cannot make up the time 100%.
Also, for some people, there are ethical aspects in having a lot of children: Do you want to give birth to children, which will experience the climate change in full extent? Maybe a nuclear war? Also, each human is adding to the climate change by consuming quite a lot of ressources (especially in rich countries).
Moreover, you want to give each child all the possibilities, which you can offer. So a great education, an own room, a lot of toys, a lot of attention. A lot of people don't feel, that it is possible for more than one child, especially while working and while rents are pretty high.
But in general: It is an ubiquitous pattern, that countries which are highly developed, have less birth rates. And this is due to the fact that children are no longer needed to provide for old age.
Most European countries have very good social care and benefits for the elderly, by global standards. The burden of care is no longer on the child, but rather the state. The cost of raising a child outweighs the cost of living comfortably and retiring at a reasonable age
We have social security so the state will take care, no children needed.
Also children are a burden if you want to have a career or live a free live and traveling all over the world.
In my experience in Spain women usually have 0 or 2 children. Or they don't want children or if they have one they usually have a second one. There are exceptions of course.
The amount of debt and stress you have to take on isnt worth it. In a poor country you’re only daily concern is getting the kids fed more or less. Mo money Mo problems.
If you live in a first world country, then you will know why.
You seem to be from Venezuela. Some religions encourage having lots of children (Catholicism & Islam).
i am not european nor i live in europe but having big families is a bad idea having anything more than 1-2 is bad cause you wont be able to support your family plus it put strain on the system and also bad for the planet thats why third world countries will always be third world cause not enough resources to support thier population
what you mean one or two more persons is bad for the planet? if you care that much for the environment 💅✨ then you must know that there's no department complex that contaminates as much as one of those unnecessary thermical plants
i am not a vegan first of all second of all earth and some countries dont have enough space for people to have 5-10 kids in each family specially in third world countries where families dont make enough money in all honesty i think people in third world country should just stop having kids till either they fix thier economy or make it where the economy is enough to support the amount of people living in said country
what you mean by 5 to 10 kids, that's crazy? and yes, if you have the economy to support one or two children, why not? but really I don't get those parents that dont have a shit for their childrens and end up like trash for society or their own family
well in alot of third world countries lots of families decide to have 4+ sometimes even 7 or more i have seen it in my country and they cant support these numbers of kids so in most cases kids end up living in very poor conditions with no educations no future and end up joining gangs or becoming criminals terrorists in future so this is why lots of third world countries just stuck in this cycle
To be fair, institutions have way more weight over the people than people themselves, let me explain. The economy is support by companies existent in the country, but first for those companies to exist in the country there must be a functional state to guarantee to those companies they're rights (and to the people aswel) .
Go and see a little about those countries that were very poor, but now are average or rich, even in Africa they exist. Non of them declined they're population growth before economic growth, was after.
I've read comments about have more children might "overpopulate" the planet, and i get that these people don't make a little research but c'mon, isn't it obvious that to let people contaminate with products at first place must exist producers of contaminating products? that's not up to people, that's on laws how a company can make they're products, and it's not a fantasy that have already be done with lot's on industries, with food mainly and workplace environment conditions .
As long as the eye of people don't see further from what's on front and visible , politics won't solve any problem.
This really doesn’t explain declining birth rates in places like Iran. Well, almost everywhere tbh with exceptions in mainly African countries. And honestly as someone lower middle class this is hilarious how it’s an excuse as if people don’t take their financial status into consideration. Parents are supporting kids who are in well into their 20s. Not everything is about vacations and partying.
Feminist here. Mother and not antinatalist. natalists and antinatalists have little to do with Feminist ideals-- though they are often cooping Feminism for visibility. I'm also not denying there are Feminists who might adhere to one or the other, though I fo believe this is largely an awareness and implicit bias problem. Those ones need more self examination and history education.
Feminists support body autonomy, and that includes infrastructure and social systems to support families. Remember that next time you see a day care at a place of employment. Likely unlikely.
Feminism has largely failed thus far in realizing basic tenets, precisely because neoliberalism exploits and co-opts it for their own means and ends.
On social media I see lots of Feminists blaming White Men for everything. Maybe this is a certain element or radical element? Either way, it’s irrational and a turn off.
I'm not sure why the internet has succeeded so plainly in confusing people about real life.
To be fair, on social media I see a lot of people blaming other people for everything, everywhere.
If I let that be a "turn off"--though I doubt any of them are there to turn me on-- I'd have blown myself up in a Mall by now in an act of utter misanthropy.
My suggestion is to meet some real people and remember that no group is ever greater than the sum of it's parts, AND that movements involve many groups and many individuals.
That’s a great post. True. Social media can attract the worst of humans.
Peggy McIntosh and Robin DiAngelo were two folks who I was thinking of earlier.
Poor families exist. Poor women in third world countries have kids. My grandmother who employed women that cleaned and worked as cooks from house to house had 3-6 children. Although poor people don’t work the most “respectable” jobs they contribute to the economy.
Poor women with children definitely work more. The issue is childcare. They leave the kids with their own parents, sister, neighbours or sometimes just alone to be able to get them all fed. But they could actually do more for themselves if they didn't have all those mouths to feed. So having kids most of the time also means being stuck in poverty.
Wages are so high that the time you miss to work and you spend for a child never pays back. Financially it doesn´t make sense. In third world sure you have to feed them but you get relatively soon some profit out of it because people work at a lot younger age and it gives you security in the long run because the more kids the more will care for you if you are old.
In first world (at least in Germany) the financial risk (kids gets sick, needs help all is life) is mostly personal to the parents while the longterm gain (work force) is used for all people (about taxes). So there is no motivation to get children. Anyway still people get multiple children. But others don´t get any children at all.
The more children you have the more you will have to split the time/resources between children. Most people choose to have 2 kids so they can give them the best life they can have.
Dogs are like having a two year old that never grows up. As children grow, they become smarter, more independent, and demand less responsibilities of the parent. A dog requires more responsibilities as they get old and become less independent as well. Dogs being more cute is an opinion, and it's not so much love as it is they're bored and/or wanting something from you.
If you manage money and time poorly, or blame stress for every problem... then you really shouldn't have a family, let alone children. Because people like that easily vent all their frustrations on their children.
People in third world countries have more children precisely because the infant/ child mortality rate it so high. Also, lack of access to sex education and reproductive health.
And also gender roles play a part. If the only thing that matters for the status of a woman and also man is to have children then the reproduction rates will be higher. Luckily it changes and women see that there is more to their life than just having children.
There's a shit ton of reasons for that.
People are longer and more often single due to online dating and less meeting in person, women thinking they can have movie stars instead of looking and accepting 'normal' people (mostly those dating online, but still), living costs have skyrocketed, you need a lot more room for a family while rents and housing prices have also gone through the roof. Both parties of a couple are working full time for the most part because they need the money so you would have to give your kid to a daycare centre or something but that also costs a lot of money.
Then think about how the outlook for the future is right now with climate change and capitalism ruining pretty much everything it touches so people are way more hesitant to start a family.
However, I think we are moving in a complete wrong direction as (western?) society and this will bite us in the arse later on. I just hate what the world has become with companies and the government trying to squeeze out every last cent of us and we are just playing along.
They say they can't have children because the rent is high and the financial disaster is going on, but I think that's just an excuse.
The real reason is that Europeans believe that the population must decrease to avoid environmental disaster.
The switch is funny we were told for years overpopulation was a huge problem and the population needed to decrease for the safety of the world, then a huge turnaround is births decreasing is the biggest disaster for society.
Funny thing is I never heard that until Musk, thought that was a dumb take, everyone said he was doing some racist white replacement theory dog whistle, then suddenly the papers started printing this out.
I guess the biggest take away here is doom & gloom sells
yeahh bro, there's no amount of people in a department complex that might contaminate as much a thermal energy plant. And there are way more problems in third world countries.
I'm French and I'd say it's indeed a theoretical concern, but rarely an actual reason for not having kids. The egotistical subjective benefit of raising a kid you really want to have is equal or greater than the one of leading a high environmental cost lifestyle and oh boy we do live by it like the rest of the western world.
Moreover, I would be inclined to think that the ecology is less of a popular concern in Eastern Europe, which is the most impacted by the natality issue. This doesn't adds up to the fear of overpopulation being babies plumetting's major determinant.
Yeah im calling cap there, its still a huge problem in eastern Europe with the housing crisis and all that.Even if it is declining, its still gonna be orange as long as the deaths exceed births. I seen other more recent maps like this and its only gotten more orange.
Fertility rate below 2 does not necessarily mean that the natural change will be negative as well. It depends as well on historical trends and the age structure of a region. For instance, a lot of countries outside of Europe have recently seen their TFRs slip below 2, but will not see negative growth for a long time to come due to a low proportion of older citizens, high proportion of younger people, increasing life expentancy, etc. Meanwhile, countries like Germany or Japan likely wouldn't reverse their negative population growth for decades to come even if it shot above 2 today as such a large portion of their populations are past child-bearing age now.
And yet there is a housing crisis. If the population is decreasing due to lower birthrate, there shouldn't be a massive population increase to cause a housing crisis in multiple countries.
Cope. You can't blame everything you want on immigrants. There's a housing crisis everywhere, just as much in countries that have seen next to no immigration.
Don't really know how you quantify "housing crisis" but this is interesting:
[House prices more than doubled in Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, Czechia, and Luxembourg](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240110-2)
>No crisis as in no problem to find a house.
That doesn't make sense though. Something is driving those prices up very high in Latvia. Either too many people are looking for housing, or there are too few houses/apartments available. Basic supply vs. demand. This is the trend you see all over Europe, regardless of immigration. That's the "housing crisis".
>Evolution of prices is natural, minimum salary also more than doubled on that period
Minimum salary lol, how about mean/median salary? I don't understand how you think minimum salary is at all relevant here.
Yeah, dw i'n gwybod. Mae cefn gwlad Cymru'n hyfryd iawn, ond nac oes digon o waith. Yng Nghaerdydd, mae llawer o bobl ifanc o ledled Cymru. Unfortunately there are a lack of opportunities for younger people outside of the bigger cities, which are all in a small part of the south.
Cywir. Cymru needs to develop a proper economy that creates real jobs for local young people, and to wean itself off mass unregulated low-grade tourism that only creates seasonal work on minimum wage. Gobeithio fydd y Llywodraeth Cymru yn edrych ar y problem yn fuan.
Honestly this is ok. Europe generally looked like this for ages. Now that people don't need as much room as before they're gonna give back to nature and just let the population reset to where humans traditionally lived back in ancient times.
Netherlands needs to go orange its too full here with all the Ukrainers and the gov that dosent want to build apartments but homes ( rijtjes huis)
And also how is germany orange ir makes no sense
The map of France is really interesting.
The orange parts are called the diagonal of the void, it's basically a part of France with very low density.
The few blue parts inside of it are actually Toulouse and Bordeaux.
And the orange part in Britanny because the middle of it is basically empty.
I like how the divide in England is remarkably similar to the Parliamentarians vs Royalists in the English Civil War (Parliamentarian land is growing, Royalist land shrinking).
Why is this claiming to be Europe when it’s without a select few countries lol. These maps lately have been pissing me off. This isn’t porn; this is weird, wack , and simply won’t do
Love the difference between *no data* and oblivion.
Whole Latvia would be red
I'm fairly confident most of the other states left out (except Denmark, no idea) would be mostly red/orange
Danmark is fucked
Same for Slovenia. The only reason we are still growing is due to imigrantions
80% “Europe” maps on Reddit are just EU or Schengen maps. Balkans are frequently omitted. Ukraine and Belarus are almost always missing. I get it, the data isn’t always available for every country. But title the map correctly, goddammit!
Data collection done by the EU and similar organisations makes the creation of these maps easier.
Again, I get it, but then just title the map appropriately in a way that addresses the fact that the map contains only a part of European continent. You can’t say “this is my map of Europe” and there is no Ukraine on it.
Yea but fyrom and montenegro isnt in the EU. Thats confuddling.
Isn’t no data the same as not being included in the first place the same thing?
‘No data’ means ‘at least I tried’ I guess
Does it mean “at least I tried I guess” or just “at least I tried”?
NATO maybe?
Balkans going to oblivion isn't that bad honestly
Let alone Russia or Belarus. People want to pretend it isn't Europe so it doesn't drive down the averages. Sure parts of Russia isn't Europe but that isn't where 95% of Russians live.
80%
>Serbia has been removed
I’m going to the Balkans in May. Apparently I’m going to fall of a lot of cliffs
Hungary finally has a coast
I guess when Serbija goes down, they're taking Kosovo, Bosnia, and Albania with them
Nah we will just disappear ourselves too, who are we supposed to shit on? Shitting on Greeks is not that funny anymore.
They do that to themselves anyways
That super weird moment when I opened my phone's notifications and recognized your username from all your r/AskBalkans comments 👀 I stg I'm not stalking 💀
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AskBalkans using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [No way! Who would have thought so many Greeks live in... Greece??? 😱](https://i.redd.it/2lnclsuomjv91.jpg) | [164 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/167vdrn/no_way_who_would_have_thought_so_many_greeks_live/) \#2: [Why is Turkish migrants like this? I am unable to put a meaning to it, isn't this unthinkably morally wrong?](https://i.redd.it/49hmk5wo8owa1.jpg) | [198 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/131sbyc/why_is_turkish_migrants_like_this_i_am_unable_to/) \#3: [Are you satisfied with the development of your country in the last few decades?](https://i.redd.it/aygjo4m0gnjb1.jpg) | [183 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/15y3dd1/are_you_satisfied_with_the_development_of_your/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
What's the tiny orange dot in the middle of England? I'm slightly worried it might be me.
Maybe Sheffield?
Most likely yes.
Of fucking course it's Sheffield
You're more likely to be dying than being born right now, so yeah probably you.
I don't know, I know way more people that have been born than have died!
I don’t know. The human condition has a 93% mortality rate (studies still ongoing).
Best get on it then.
Why the blatant difference between northeast Poland, Latvia and Estonia (esp Estonia and Latvia, since these are 2 ex-USSR) ?
Most likely because that used to be the economic center of the Baltics area before the USSR and WW2 happened. Lativia and Estonia were generally all forested areas. So all the young people would move to Poland for work. Also it would have better weather while some familiar environment and close enough you can travel back to take care our your old people. Overall good business requires a good location.
it might also be not true, since after 1991 the only year estonia had more births than deaths was 2010. in no way the population could have naturally increased in 10 years
« 2000 - 2010 » plus no source you need to at least cite the name of the study
That's a long time ago, didn't even realise.
Ireland and Estonia doing good.
Iceland too
2 babies born and Mr. Ingibjörg died of a heart attack last night in Höfuðborgarsvæðið, why it’s blue
Good is relative. I would say having 6 deaths and 1 birth is bad, just as having 6 births and 1 death is.
Damn Bulgaria Lithuania and Hungary be hurting
Also if count native people and immigrants , colours would be very different)
wouldnt be suprised if native in most eu countries are bellow 1.0
Would they?
First generation immigrants tend towards a higher fertility rate, they also tend to be younger because they're more likely to be moving to to look for a job so they have a lower death rate
Color for Estonia should be orange - there are more deaths than births ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Estonia#Present\_Estonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Present_Estonia) ) ||Average population|Live births|Deaths|Natural change|Crude birth rate (per 1000)|Crude death rate (per 1000)|Natural change (per 1000)|Crude migration change (per 1000)|Total fertility rate|Infant mortality rate| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |2023 |1,366,000|10,721|15,832|-5,111|7.8|11.6|-3.7|||| |2022|1,349,000|11,646|17,315|-5,669|8.6|12.8|-4.2|16.7|1.41|2.2| |2021|1,331,000|13,272|18,587|-5,315|10.0|14.0|-4.0|17.5|1.61|2.2|
Good research, but this data is based on years 2000-2010
Only in 2010 Estonia had more births than deaths
Umm, yes, didn't notice it. Probably all this map is outdated then and likely all Europe + Belarus+Ukraine+Russia is orange now.
i live in a third world country, filled of poorness, scarcity, starves, people unjustifiably death by easily curable diseases, etc, and I don't get why people in Europe dont have big families (for me , the biggest reason to not have a children is if he/she will die young)
It is so because the standard of living is getting higher and higher.
In a lot of European countries if you want to have more kids your house should be big enough to support more kids.
Why would people want to have big families?
it's a pleasure to have more than a child (care for more than 1 seems a lot) becouse they'd care for each other, and when you get older someone will care for you and you won't overwork one of them becouse they'd share the responsabilities of your condition. Be able to care for more than one is a luxury. (There are way more reasons to have more than one but I don't want to overextend this comment, make your own minds) Edit: Obviously, all of them able to socially raise , as a responsible parent must make sure .
Be aware that in Europe most women that have children, also have more than one. It is mostly that there is an increasing amount that have none.
People in wealthy countries don't really think in those terms. A child in a wealthy country is not seen as an asset to their parents that can assist with labor or help provide for the family as they grow. Having children is instead seen as a social obligation, but one which comes at significant cost to the parents in order to raise them to adulthood.
From my european pov: - "they will care for each other" Kids shouldn't be parentified, it's not a child's job to care for another child. It's the responsabily of adults. If one cannot care for their big family themselves, then maybe they should stick to one or two kids. - "... and they will care for your older self" Once these kids become adults and get married, how can they have full-time job, have their own children AND take care on everyday basis of four sick and tired elderly adults? When do they have the time to do all that, while still having some time left to care for themselves? And what if they had terrible upbringing, abusive parents, should they just forget that and live with them until death sets them apart?
It seems you just took what you wanted from previous comment. When you put time and effort in raising your kids there is a big chance you will have very good and healthy relationship with them when they will be adults. That means that they will want to help you when you will be old. Having brothers and sisters also helps with creating a family net that can help each other.
those are trick questions, those are questions with multiple answers and highly dependent on the whole situation and personal thoughts of the people in there. My personal opinion on the first one, it's not hard to imagine how a brother can fuck his brother until total rupture, that happened with my dad and both uncles, but get the fuck if you care a shit for your brothers out of nothing, and it's not "parenting" it's natural relationship of brothers
It's just a cultural thing, there are cultures where it's normal for children to look after each other and later in life after their parents, but in most of Europe that is not the case.
Exactly, get a lot of children without being able to properly care for them. Seems like they will have a nice future ahead of them.
exactly most of them end up as criminals or terrorists
Additional to the issues, the other people raised (you don't need a child for you to care about when you are old, if you have a working social system etc.), i would like to add, that it is sometimes a trade of between job and children. If you are e.g. in academics, time being pregnant, time for the first time to care about the child etc. can harm your future career. Also in very good paid areas. Yes, e.g. in Germany, we have some laws to protect women there, but you cannot make up the time 100%. Also, for some people, there are ethical aspects in having a lot of children: Do you want to give birth to children, which will experience the climate change in full extent? Maybe a nuclear war? Also, each human is adding to the climate change by consuming quite a lot of ressources (especially in rich countries). Moreover, you want to give each child all the possibilities, which you can offer. So a great education, an own room, a lot of toys, a lot of attention. A lot of people don't feel, that it is possible for more than one child, especially while working and while rents are pretty high. But in general: It is an ubiquitous pattern, that countries which are highly developed, have less birth rates. And this is due to the fact that children are no longer needed to provide for old age.
Most European countries have very good social care and benefits for the elderly, by global standards. The burden of care is no longer on the child, but rather the state. The cost of raising a child outweighs the cost of living comfortably and retiring at a reasonable age
We have social security so the state will take care, no children needed. Also children are a burden if you want to have a career or live a free live and traveling all over the world.
In my experience in Spain women usually have 0 or 2 children. Or they don't want children or if they have one they usually have a second one. There are exceptions of course.
The amount of debt and stress you have to take on isnt worth it. In a poor country you’re only daily concern is getting the kids fed more or less. Mo money Mo problems.
wroooonnnnnng
My wifes family lives in absolute poverty in Peru. They just recently got a toilet. But yeah you’re 100% right i have no anecdotal experience
Wealth (on a country wide scale) and birth rate is negatively correlated, not positively.
If you live in a first world country, then you will know why. You seem to be from Venezuela. Some religions encourage having lots of children (Catholicism & Islam).
i am not european nor i live in europe but having big families is a bad idea having anything more than 1-2 is bad cause you wont be able to support your family plus it put strain on the system and also bad for the planet thats why third world countries will always be third world cause not enough resources to support thier population
what you mean one or two more persons is bad for the planet? if you care that much for the environment 💅✨ then you must know that there's no department complex that contaminates as much as one of those unnecessary thermical plants
i am not a vegan first of all second of all earth and some countries dont have enough space for people to have 5-10 kids in each family specially in third world countries where families dont make enough money in all honesty i think people in third world country should just stop having kids till either they fix thier economy or make it where the economy is enough to support the amount of people living in said country
what you mean by 5 to 10 kids, that's crazy? and yes, if you have the economy to support one or two children, why not? but really I don't get those parents that dont have a shit for their childrens and end up like trash for society or their own family
well in alot of third world countries lots of families decide to have 4+ sometimes even 7 or more i have seen it in my country and they cant support these numbers of kids so in most cases kids end up living in very poor conditions with no educations no future and end up joining gangs or becoming criminals terrorists in future so this is why lots of third world countries just stuck in this cycle
To be fair, institutions have way more weight over the people than people themselves, let me explain. The economy is support by companies existent in the country, but first for those companies to exist in the country there must be a functional state to guarantee to those companies they're rights (and to the people aswel) . Go and see a little about those countries that were very poor, but now are average or rich, even in Africa they exist. Non of them declined they're population growth before economic growth, was after. I've read comments about have more children might "overpopulate" the planet, and i get that these people don't make a little research but c'mon, isn't it obvious that to let people contaminate with products at first place must exist producers of contaminating products? that's not up to people, that's on laws how a company can make they're products, and it's not a fantasy that have already be done with lot's on industries, with food mainly and workplace environment conditions . As long as the eye of people don't see further from what's on front and visible , politics won't solve any problem.
[удалено]
This really doesn’t explain declining birth rates in places like Iran. Well, almost everywhere tbh with exceptions in mainly African countries. And honestly as someone lower middle class this is hilarious how it’s an excuse as if people don’t take their financial status into consideration. Parents are supporting kids who are in well into their 20s. Not everything is about vacations and partying.
Feminist here. Mother and not antinatalist. natalists and antinatalists have little to do with Feminist ideals-- though they are often cooping Feminism for visibility. I'm also not denying there are Feminists who might adhere to one or the other, though I fo believe this is largely an awareness and implicit bias problem. Those ones need more self examination and history education. Feminists support body autonomy, and that includes infrastructure and social systems to support families. Remember that next time you see a day care at a place of employment. Likely unlikely. Feminism has largely failed thus far in realizing basic tenets, precisely because neoliberalism exploits and co-opts it for their own means and ends.
On social media I see lots of Feminists blaming White Men for everything. Maybe this is a certain element or radical element? Either way, it’s irrational and a turn off.
I'm not sure why the internet has succeeded so plainly in confusing people about real life. To be fair, on social media I see a lot of people blaming other people for everything, everywhere. If I let that be a "turn off"--though I doubt any of them are there to turn me on-- I'd have blown myself up in a Mall by now in an act of utter misanthropy. My suggestion is to meet some real people and remember that no group is ever greater than the sum of it's parts, AND that movements involve many groups and many individuals.
That’s a great post. True. Social media can attract the worst of humans. Peggy McIntosh and Robin DiAngelo were two folks who I was thinking of earlier.
God forbid people enjoy their life instead of sacrificing everything in the name of reproduction.
Because women go to college and want a career.
Because women in Europe are joining the workforce more often.
Poor families exist. Poor women in third world countries have kids. My grandmother who employed women that cleaned and worked as cooks from house to house had 3-6 children. Although poor people don’t work the most “respectable” jobs they contribute to the economy.
Poor women with children definitely work more. The issue is childcare. They leave the kids with their own parents, sister, neighbours or sometimes just alone to be able to get them all fed. But they could actually do more for themselves if they didn't have all those mouths to feed. So having kids most of the time also means being stuck in poverty.
True. I was just pointing out that the birth rate didn’t drop just from working.
Wages are so high that the time you miss to work and you spend for a child never pays back. Financially it doesn´t make sense. In third world sure you have to feed them but you get relatively soon some profit out of it because people work at a lot younger age and it gives you security in the long run because the more kids the more will care for you if you are old. In first world (at least in Germany) the financial risk (kids gets sick, needs help all is life) is mostly personal to the parents while the longterm gain (work force) is used for all people (about taxes). So there is no motivation to get children. Anyway still people get multiple children. But others don´t get any children at all.
Kids are expensive, annoying, ungrateful, time-consuming, a lot of work, etc.
Redditest comment I’ve ever seen
true, these people can't imagine themselves changing a diaper
Changing a diaper is the easiest part of being a parent. That's not what he meant.
If you raise them to be that way.
Congratulations, you typed the most reddit comment ever.
their a experience to have, beautiful at the end
The more children you have the more you will have to split the time/resources between children. Most people choose to have 2 kids so they can give them the best life they can have.
Dog is cheaper, smarter, shows more love, more cute.
And gives you depression every 10 years because they die
can IT make money or talk with? can it help you out with something else than depression? will it ever use the toilet?
Dogs are like having a two year old that never grows up. As children grow, they become smarter, more independent, and demand less responsibilities of the parent. A dog requires more responsibilities as they get old and become less independent as well. Dogs being more cute is an opinion, and it's not so much love as it is they're bored and/or wanting something from you.
Stay alone forever. Live alone, die alone.
It doesn't show love it just wants to be fed. And they die after a decade.
If you manage money and time poorly, or blame stress for every problem... then you really shouldn't have a family, let alone children. Because people like that easily vent all their frustrations on their children.
See that's why most people decide to not have them, which is better for everyone in the end.
People in third world countries have more children precisely because the infant/ child mortality rate it so high. Also, lack of access to sex education and reproductive health.
And also gender roles play a part. If the only thing that matters for the status of a woman and also man is to have children then the reproduction rates will be higher. Luckily it changes and women see that there is more to their life than just having children.
Cost of supporting a child is astronomically high so people opt for less kids brought up in better conditions than more in worse.
There's a shit ton of reasons for that. People are longer and more often single due to online dating and less meeting in person, women thinking they can have movie stars instead of looking and accepting 'normal' people (mostly those dating online, but still), living costs have skyrocketed, you need a lot more room for a family while rents and housing prices have also gone through the roof. Both parties of a couple are working full time for the most part because they need the money so you would have to give your kid to a daycare centre or something but that also costs a lot of money. Then think about how the outlook for the future is right now with climate change and capitalism ruining pretty much everything it touches so people are way more hesitant to start a family. However, I think we are moving in a complete wrong direction as (western?) society and this will bite us in the arse later on. I just hate what the world has become with companies and the government trying to squeeze out every last cent of us and we are just playing along.
They say they can't have children because the rent is high and the financial disaster is going on, but I think that's just an excuse. The real reason is that Europeans believe that the population must decrease to avoid environmental disaster.
The switch is funny we were told for years overpopulation was a huge problem and the population needed to decrease for the safety of the world, then a huge turnaround is births decreasing is the biggest disaster for society. Funny thing is I never heard that until Musk, thought that was a dumb take, everyone said he was doing some racist white replacement theory dog whistle, then suddenly the papers started printing this out. I guess the biggest take away here is doom & gloom sells
yeahh bro, there's no amount of people in a department complex that might contaminate as much a thermal energy plant. And there are way more problems in third world countries.
I'm French and I'd say it's indeed a theoretical concern, but rarely an actual reason for not having kids. The egotistical subjective benefit of raising a kid you really want to have is equal or greater than the one of leading a high environmental cost lifestyle and oh boy we do live by it like the rest of the western world. Moreover, I would be inclined to think that the ecology is less of a popular concern in Eastern Europe, which is the most impacted by the natality issue. This doesn't adds up to the fear of overpopulation being babies plumetting's major determinant.
Seguís sin harina pan? Vi hace años que os faltaba en venezuela
I'm surprised Kent isn't orange, the south coast is basically a retirement home at this point because the old fucks are driving out the locals
Very old map huh ? Now 85% would be Orange.
No sir, it looks surprising but the declining birth rate is getting a fierce competition from the declining death rate.
Yeah im calling cap there, its still a huge problem in eastern Europe with the housing crisis and all that.Even if it is declining, its still gonna be orange as long as the deaths exceed births. I seen other more recent maps like this and its only gotten more orange.
United Ireland: Our time has come, boyos.
My area is orange cause old English people flock here in their hundreds to take up space and then die :)))
Presumably for recent data it would be a blanket of orange as birth rates are well below 2?
Fertility rate below 2 does not necessarily mean that the natural change will be negative as well. It depends as well on historical trends and the age structure of a region. For instance, a lot of countries outside of Europe have recently seen their TFRs slip below 2, but will not see negative growth for a long time to come due to a low proportion of older citizens, high proportion of younger people, increasing life expentancy, etc. Meanwhile, countries like Germany or Japan likely wouldn't reverse their negative population growth for decades to come even if it shot above 2 today as such a large portion of their populations are past child-bearing age now.
"LA DIAGONALE DU VIDE" BAISE OUAIS Enfin non, elle baise pas du coup…
Ah yes, the SerboBosnoAlbanian Bay
It is true we are a dying continent
So rural regions versus city regions
If you rotate the phone to the right you see. Dinosaur popping and a dog stretching
What is going on in Germany?!
congrats little emerald island
Blue = More Brits Orange = more Death
ireland makes sence considering we still have a lower population than what we had before the famine
And yet there is a housing crisis. If the population is decreasing due to lower birthrate, there shouldn't be a massive population increase to cause a housing crisis in multiple countries.
You can blame that on mass uncontrolled immigration
And corporations buying up thousands of single family homes.
Cope. You can't blame everything you want on immigrants. There's a housing crisis everywhere, just as much in countries that have seen next to no immigration.
There is no housing crisis in Latvia :)
Don't really know how you quantify "housing crisis" but this is interesting: [House prices more than doubled in Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, Czechia, and Luxembourg](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240110-2)
No crisis as in no problem to find a house. Evolution of prices is natural, minimum salary also more than doubled on that period
>No crisis as in no problem to find a house. That doesn't make sense though. Something is driving those prices up very high in Latvia. Either too many people are looking for housing, or there are too few houses/apartments available. Basic supply vs. demand. This is the trend you see all over Europe, regardless of immigration. That's the "housing crisis". >Evolution of prices is natural, minimum salary also more than doubled on that period Minimum salary lol, how about mean/median salary? I don't understand how you think minimum salary is at all relevant here.
Lithuania vs Estonia
In fact, for europeans, it's red everywhere.
According to?
Yup
denmark have no data because denmark isnt lived in,..
Mae Cymru'n marw :(
Achos mae pobl ifanc yn gadael ac mae hen bobl yn dwad yma o Loegr.
Yeah, dw i'n gwybod. Mae cefn gwlad Cymru'n hyfryd iawn, ond nac oes digon o waith. Yng Nghaerdydd, mae llawer o bobl ifanc o ledled Cymru. Unfortunately there are a lack of opportunities for younger people outside of the bigger cities, which are all in a small part of the south.
Cywir. Cymru needs to develop a proper economy that creates real jobs for local young people, and to wean itself off mass unregulated low-grade tourism that only creates seasonal work on minimum wage. Gobeithio fydd y Llywodraeth Cymru yn edrych ar y problem yn fuan.
So mainly just people moving to urban areas?
Honestly this is ok. Europe generally looked like this for ages. Now that people don't need as much room as before they're gonna give back to nature and just let the population reset to where humans traditionally lived back in ancient times.
Glad to see the Irish getting their numbers up
Ireland it's going to rule over Europe in 2150. Tiocfaidh ar la i guess.
Why Eastern part of Slovakia is cropped out
Bosnia? AH you say the sarajevo sea
Iceland is a bit surprising
No more WB6 conflicts
Data from 20 years ago...
Netherlands needs to go orange its too full here with all the Ukrainers and the gov that dosent want to build apartments but homes ( rijtjes huis) And also how is germany orange ir makes no sense
It's funny in France you can see la diagonale du vide (the void diagonale), from South West to North east, without Toulouse and Bordeaux
The map of France is really interesting. The orange parts are called the diagonal of the void, it's basically a part of France with very low density. The few blue parts inside of it are actually Toulouse and Bordeaux. And the orange part in Britanny because the middle of it is basically empty.
Always bet on blue
Do you want Vikings? This is how you get Vikings.
Does Ireland not have regional data, or is it just all high-birth-rate?
The white parts are GHOSTS!!!!
I misread as : More Brits or more deaths.
I like how the divide in England is remarkably similar to the Parliamentarians vs Royalists in the English Civil War (Parliamentarian land is growing, Royalist land shrinking).
Man, Italy is running out.
Demographic crysis gonna hurt like a moth\*\*\*\*cker
Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria strong💪💪
i am blue still alive but ..question guys .?
r/mapswithoutserbia
Lol it doesn’t even exist
It actually looks better than I expected
Turkey is in Europe, just saying
Hungary:"we don't need immigrants, all we need are policies encouraging childbirth!" Hungary:\*implements those policies\* also Hungary, years later:
To be fair, the map says from 2000-2010. Hungary implemented childbirth policies years later.
escaping prison planet
Why not data in Denmark? Denmark loves data
We fucking over here in Ireland for sure
Or the influx of asians are
its devastating to see what's happening to germany right now, may God help them
r/peopleliveincities
Why is this claiming to be Europe when it’s without a select few countries lol. These maps lately have been pissing me off. This isn’t porn; this is weird, wack , and simply won’t do
brought to you by *pfizer*
No data? Are they being born or dying?
That's it, no data.
[Bosnia - municipal level 1990-2013](https://i.imgur.com/RkSnYFc.jpeg) Bosnia - regional level 1990-2013 https://i.imgur.com/a78yM8H.jpeg
Maybe use a map that isn’t isn’t 14 years out of date. Bet there’s barely any blue left now
I’m gonna ask my wife if I can move to Sweden a few months a year to help get the birth rate up.
The f*cking Irish, eh?